JUDGMENT :

1) By way of present revision applications under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicants – accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and orders dated 17.05.2013 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur, in Special (GEBCC) Nos. 51 and 52 of 2012 as well as FIRs registered with GUVNL Police Station, vide C.R.Nos.1039 and 1041 of 2010 for the offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

2) It is the case of the prosecution is that, the applicants are the partners of firms namely “Anand Textile Printers” at GIDC, Dhareshwar and “Polite Processors” situated at GIDC, Ankleshwar, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot. That on 16.04.2010, raiding team of PGVCL visited the unit of the applicants and made Rojkam and seized two electric meters from the said units in the presence of the applicant No.1 for the alleged theft of electricity. Pursuant to the same, two FIRs came to be filed at GUVNL Police Station, vide C.R.No.1039 and 1041 of 2010 for the offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for the theft of electricity.

3) Apropos the FIRs, the applicants approached learned Sessions Court by preferring anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed on condition to deposit the bill amounts by way of cheque. Thereafter, chargesheet came to be filed under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of the Act.

4) The applicants also preferred discharge application/s in Special C.C. No.51 and 52 of 2012 on the ground that there cannot be two FIRs for the same offence and as the total amount of the bills were paid to the PGVCL, which came to be rejected on 17.05.2013. Hence, these revisions have been filed before this court.

5) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the employees of ‘Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited’ visited the applicants’ units and seized two electricity meters from the same premises; however, for the same alleged offence, two separate FIRs were registered on the same day at GUVNL Police Station being II-1039 of 2010 and II-C.R. No.1041 of 2010 under identical provisions of the Electricity Act, which is unconstitutional and liable to be quashed. It is further contended that applicant No.1 managed the business affairs of the partnership firm “Polite Processors,” whereas applicant Nos.2 and 3 have no role in conducting or functioning of the units and were arraigned as accused merely to exert pressure. The applicants deny their involvement in the alleged theft of electricity, asserting that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon them; that the seizure of the meters occurred in the presence of applicant No.1, and no presumption of knowledge can be attributed to the other applicants who do not even visit the premises and are only nominal partners. It was also argued that the applicants, being laypersons, are unaware of the technical procedures adopted by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited in detecting alleged theft, and since even the testing laboratory and its staff are under the control of the same authority, there exists a likelihood of bias or erroneous findings beyond the comprehension or ability of the applicants to effectively challenge, and therefore, the impugned orders of the learned Sessions Judge and FIRs deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Over and above the above submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Rasipuram Textiles (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 LawSuit (SC) 2422 and this Court in the case of Rajeshkumar Khimjibhai Jakasania & Ors, reported in 2023 LawSuit (Guj.) 750

6) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 – PGVCL has opposed the present revision applications and contended that, this is not a simple case of faulty error in the electric meters. Tampering with the meters was found, MRI data was examined and upon satisfaction of the electricity theft by the